« PreviousContinue »
c. Ē. You cannot take this for a Proof, that he had no hyperbolical Expreslions in it. And yet unlels it were, it is not at all to the purpose. Buç let me tell you farther; the Vindicator not only puts you in mind, that this is a Panegyrical Oras tion; (a) but moreover that in this fame Dil course Leo speaks of fuck a Parity-between St. Peter and St. Paul, as cannot -well consist with a Supremacy in the one,' and Subjection in the other; and again, that Cardinal Cusanus affirms of this same Leo, that be has freely own'd all good Bishops to be the Suc: ceffors of St. Peter ; and by Consequence, that this Succesion, either conveys no Supremacy, and to the Pope bas not a Title to it upon this account, or else çon. veys too much, and to all good Bishops must bave it, Either of which Suppositions quite overtbrows your Hypothesis, and at lengch concludes, Were I to give you up this Popes as an avow'd Advocate for the uni verdi Cupremacy, the Sum of all were only this; that by the fifth Century you have found one. Cbriftian Wrio ter, a Roman Bishop, and so Speaking for bimself, who in a Rhetorical Oration, declared for the Supremacy of St. Peter's Seat, and the Glory of Rome upon that accounts To all which you give not one word of answer.
R. C. The Same Saist writing to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, whom he had made bis Deputy, to help the Care, says he, which we owe to all Churches principally by Christ's Inftitution; he observes that among the Apostles, tho there was a like Honour, there was a certain difference in their power. That accordingly there is a Distinction of Bishops, and that it was very well ordain'd, that the Bishops of greater Cities, should have a more extensive Charge, by whom the Care of the whole Church might fiow to the See of (a) Cafe truly flared, p. 52.
Peter only, so that no part should disagree from its Head, p. 90. 91.
C. E. Yet after all I see nothing here that may not be answer'd from what has already been said in the third Se&ion, p. 31,&c. and chicher therefore I refer the Reader.
SE C.T. VI. R. C. Proceed next to consider some Obje&ions
of the Vindicator, and to shew how weak and incompetent they are, as to the purpose they were brought for.
C. E. Be pleas'd then to let us have them, and to see how effe&ually you will be able to demolish them.
R. C. His first Obje&tion, p. 7. (which is also Dr. Barrow's) is, that the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 28. gives Constantinople and Rome equal Privileges, tá ise meto Bre, because they are both Imperial Cities, p. 104.
C. E. And a material Objection it is in my Opinion. He gives you also the Senfe (a) of Nilus of Thesalonica as to this point, namely, that we learn from bence, that the Pope bad bis Primacy above opber Churches given bim, pot by the Apostles, but by #be Fathers.' And that it was because Rome was the Imperial City. He advises his Reader also to consült Barlaam to the same purpose, and Sozomen. And it is to be presumed you take particular care to confute these, R. C. I take no notice of any of them; but I
which may ferve as well, that the Canon can affect only the Patriarchal Privileges of Rome over those Provinces, which had a Special De Pendence upon it ; but this without the belp of a Petitio (4) Cafe truly fated, p. k.
Principii (that is without supposing the Question, and taking that for granted which is the whole subject of the Dispute) will not burt the Supremacy.
C. E. This is very strange. For if what Privileges it has were given it by the Fathers, and only in Consideration of its being the Imperial City, this utterly overthrows your Pretence of an universal Supremacy deriv'd to it from St. Peter.
R. C. Though St. Peter's Succefor bad neither been a Patriarch, nor even a Metropolitan, be would bave bad that Supremacy, that was given to Saint Perer before he was either of them, Ibid.
C. E. This is a Petitio Principii with a witness, where because you have not been able to prove the Supremacy you pretend to, you courageously fuppose it, and then set ġour own groundless supposal in Opposition to an' unanswerable Argument against it. And if this be your way of answering Obje&ions, you may soon get rid of them all with a wet Finger. The Canon gives not the least Intimation of any Privileges more than Patriarchal belonging to Rome, and had the Pope then fancied to himself such a supream Jurisdiction, as you now fancy for him, he would never have been contented with the Council's comparing his Privileges with those of his Subjects. Nor is it reasonable to suppose the Council would ever have enacted a Canon so much to his Detri. ment, as this would have been, but that they were well asTur’d he had no other Privileges above other Bishops, but what belong'd to him as a Patriarch and Metropolitan, and these given him too because of the Glory of the City wherein he prefided. So that in your own Words I may return this Answer: You can never get any tbing by your own answer to this Objection, unless you suppose the Bishop of Rome had a Jurifdi&tion beyond bis Patriarchate; that is, unless you suppose that which is the only thing in
Question. I add, and whereof the Fathers afsemibled at Chalcedon fhew themselves to have had no Nocion.
R. C. The Vindicator objects 2dly p. 42. That it is a great Absurdity, ibat after St. Peter's Death, Linus or Clemens, who at most were only Disciples, should have Jurisdiétion over St. John the Evangelift. But if we must believe nothing that is strange, (though a Consequence either of Scripture or of Apostolical Tradition) we must bid adieu to Christian Religion, p. 105,
C. E. Here you proceed again upon a meer fuppofal, withouč any Proof, of Scripture and Apoftolical Tradition being for this Supremacy, Whereas nothing of this yet appears, and the Absurdity here objected is a confiderable Argument against it, being such as is not easy to be believ'd without some better Evidence for the Truth of the Fact than we have yet met with. Nor will your Instances at all answer the Objection. That the blessed Virgin should be subject to the Apostles in matters Spiritual and Ecclefiaftical, which was the proper matter of their Office, is not at all strange to me, how unaccountable foover you may apprehend it to be. And that our Blessed Lord himself should condescend during his Minority, to be subject to his Mother, was bue what became him who was (a) to fulfil all RighteousHels; and what therefore you need not be exceedingly surpriz'd at, considering the manner and design of this Incarnation, and to how much lower a Degree he was graciously pleas'd to humble himself for our Redemption. Nor will his unparallelled Goodness in so debasing himself for our Sakes, ever prove it reasonable to suppose an Apoftle subjected to the Dominion of one who was only a Bishop, though it were him of the See of Rome. (a) Matt. 3. 15.
R. C. Objection III. p. 42. Is the Authority of a Discourse printed at Cologne, Anno 1681. called Moiens sûres, &c. whose Author was of the Vindicator's Religion ; so that the Case truly itated may be objected as well as Moiens sûres, p. 105, 106.
C. E. We have been told, as I have noted before, that this Treatise had the Approbation of the Archbishop of Tholouse, which I should think to be at least, a competent proof of it's being written by one of your selves. And what Evidence do you produce to the contrary ? Truly none at all. You fatly deny it; but it is too much to expect, that you should undertake to give your Reasons for denying it. Only he does not please you, and is therefore to bear Rigaltius company, and be given up for a Protestant in Masquerade.
R. C. He say's Cardinal Cusanus confirms what S. Gregory bad told us before, that the Three first Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and all the Bishops that were under them, Sate in S. Peter's Chair. Now the Truth is; S. Peter, besides bis own See at Rome, was suppoled to have a special regard to Antioch, where he once sate; and to Alexandria, where bis Disciple, S. Mark, planted the G Spel. So that all the Bishops, and all the Parisli-Priests, within those Precinets, succeeded to some part of S. Peter's Charge But as only the Bishops of Rome were absolutely, and strictly esteemed his Successors; so they only inherited the full Extent of his Jurisdiction.
C. E. Here you tell us, S. Peter was Sepposed to have a special regard to Antioch and Alexandria; which you must own is but meer supposal, on which nothing can be built. And if it were mahifestly crue, how could his regard to those places, when he was settled, as you hold, at Rome, make the Bishops there his Succeffors? They had their proper Patriarchs as well as Rome; and whosoever therefore came into those Sees after